Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Schedule

Repeals

Amendment proposed[this day]: No. 116, in schedule, page 25, line 4, at end insert—
‘Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
Section 19E.’.
—[Mr. Byrne.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Eric Illsley: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: Government amendments Nos. 117 to 119.
Government new clause 6—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person as Chief Inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency.
(2) The Chief Inspector shall monitor and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Border and Immigration Agency; in particular, the Chief Inspector shall consider and make recommendations about—
(a) consistency of approach within the Border and Immigration Agency,
(b) the practice and performance of the Border and Immigration Agency compared to other persons doing similar things,
(c) practice and procedure in making decisions,
(d) the treatment of claimants and applicants,
(e) certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (unfounded claim),
(f) compliance with law about discrimination in the exercise of functions, including reliance on section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (exception for immigration functions),
(g) practice and procedure in relation to the exercise of enforcement powers (including powers of arrest, entry, search and seizure),
(h) the provision of information,
(i) the handling of complaints, and
(j) the content of information about conditions in countries outside the United Kingdom which the Secretary of State compiles and makes available, for purposes connected with immigration and asylum, to immigration officers and other officials.
(3) In this section “the Border and Immigration Agency” means—
(a) immigration officers, and
(b) other officials of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, in respect of functions relating to immigration, asylum or nationality.
(4) The Chief Inspector shall not aim to investigate individual cases (although this subsection does not prevent the Chief Inspector from considering or drawing conclusions about an individual case for the purpose of, or in the context of, considering a general issue).’.
And the following amendment thereto: (a), Leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The Chief Inspector shall have the power to investigate individual cases.’.
Government new clause 7—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Chief Inspector: supplemental.
Government new clause 8—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Reports—
‘(1) The Chief Inspector shall report in writing to the Secretary of State—
(a) once each calendar year, in relation to the performance of the functions under section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] generally, and
(b) at other times as requested by the Secretary of State in relation to specified matters.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any report received under subsection (1).
(3) But a copy may omit material if the Secretary of State thinks that its publication—
(a) is undesirable for reasons of national security, or
(b) might jeopardise an individual’s safety.’.
And the following amendment thereto: (a), after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Information Commissioner’.
Government new clause 9—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Plans.
Government new clause 10—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies: general.
Government new clause 11—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies: non-interference notices.
Government new clause 12—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Abolition of other bodies.
Government new clause 13—Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Prescribed matters.
Government new clause 14—Senior President of Tribunals.

Damian Green: When we adjourned, I was dealing with my amendment to new clause 8 and specifically with the Minister’s reason for thinking it unnecessary for the Information Commissioner to have some kind of oversight of material that should be deleted from the report given to Parliament by the proposed new inspectorate. I was about to say that I found his explanation somewhat unconvincing. It appeared to rely on the fact that rather than have the Information Commissioner exercise some kind of oversight in advance, it would always be possible for him to do so after the publication of the report.
That is simply implausible. By definition, the material that had been kept out by the Home Secretary would, at least on the surface, have been kept out for reasons either of the personal security of individuals or of national security. In that case it is hard to see how in practice the Information Commissioner would have access to that information, still less that anyone could make a successful freedom of information request that might trigger some activity by the Information Commissioner. I just did not follow why the Minister thought that that would be an effective second line of defence of the ability to scrutinise the material that the Home Secretary thought was unsuitable to be given to Parliament. As with my amendment to new clause 6, I hope to press my amendment to new clause 8 to a vote.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his amendments. They have given us the opportunity to explore one or two issues in some helpful detail. My concern remains that the new arrangements that we are putting in place can conduct their business efficiently and effectively, without being drowned by bits of paper from Government Departments seeking pre-clearance from the Information Commissioner before we put things into the public domain, particularly where they relate to issues of personal security or national security. On the other hand, I do not want the new regulator to be snowed under with cases put up by people who are simply trying to avoid removal or deportation from this country. We are broadly in a similar place. I will reflect on his comments before thinking through whether further Government amendments should be brought forward. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to press the amendments to a vote in order that I do not forget that point.

Eric Illsley: The two amendments to new clauses 6 and 8 will come later in our proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 117, in schedule, page 25, line 7, column 2, at beginning insert—
‘Section 34.
Section 111.’.
No. 118, in schedule, page 25, line 8, column 2, at beginning insert—
‘Section 142.’.
No. 119, in schedule, page 25, line 12, at end insert—
 ‘Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
In section 43(3) the word “and” after paragraph (c).’.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44

Commencement

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 44, page 23, line 19, after, ‘17’ insert ‘and section 27’.
 The amendment is designed to make the Bill more effective in one of the areas where I think there is no division on either side of the House and indeed it may be particularly appropriate that we debate this while in the Chamber we debate the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade. This amendment would make it easier and certainly quicker to attempt to stamp out the modern form of slavery which is people trafficking.
 The effect of this clause is to add to the commencement section of the Bill section 27, the offences that relate to people trafficking. As currently drafted, only clause 17 of the Bill, support for failed asylum-seekers, comes into force the day the Bill becomes an Act. What we seek to do is to add a reference to section 27 so that we can get a move on with attacking people trafficking.
 Everyone on the Committee has participated in debates about the despicable practice of people trafficking. The Government have signalled their intention to tighten up the law, indeed to sign the Council of Europe convention that will enable them to do so, and we welcome that and we support them in that move.
The Minister will recall that when we discussed our amendments to clause 17 we were keen that this House should send a very clear message that we are all serious about toughening up the law and we think that this amendment is a very clear and easy way of doing that. It would ensure that the provisions relating to people trafficking are brought in at the earliest opportunity. We believe this would act as a deterrent and it will also enable the conviction and punishment of as many people traffickers as possible. I am sure the Minister will agree that the sooner we can start on that course of action the better.
The earliest opportunity to start doing that is the day this Bill passes on to the statute book and that is what this amendment would achieve. I hope therefore that it will be regarded sympathetically by the Government.

John Hemming: The amendment seems very sensible and one which I am sure the Government will support.

Liam Byrne: I did indeed look upon this amendment with a great deal of sympathy because I think the Committee has been united in the debates we have had on this subject over the last few weeks. There has been a very clear determination that the law in this area needs to be strengthened. I therefore sought some strong arguments as to why we should not accept this amendment. Only one thing swayed my mind and there is only one reason that I therefore ask the hon. Member for Ashford to consider withdrawing this amendment.
The advice that I have received is that there is a risk—a small risk but a risk none the less—that the courts would potentially not look favourably on our attempts to prosecute under this offence if we did not observe the convention of seeking a brief interlude in which to publicise the fact that this new offence had been introduced.
I am told that it is usual to bring in offences after a period of two months. I do not want to risk—and I am sure nobody on this Committee would wish to risk—any potential prosecution for an offence such as this going wrong because we did not observe this protocol. If the risk is there we should be alive to it. My concern is that when this offence is introduced we are able to maximise the effectiveness of our prosecutions using this offence. If there is a risk that puts that potential in jeopardy, I think I should accept that  advice. Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment because the argument that has been put to me is that there may well be no interlude in which we can publicise—

John Hemming: Will the Minister give way?

Liam Byrne: I will not give way.
—publicise this offence and therefore if prosecutions may be in jeopardy I think the amendment should be withdrawn. The brief interlude of two months is not a big time period. If it allows us, however, to increase our chances of successful prosecutions, I think we should take it.

Damian Green: I find that explanation quite extraordinary. It is not clear why that convention has built up—if it has built up. I confess that in my 10 years in this House I have never heard that explanation for delaying commencement. I fully accept that the Minister will have been given that advice—although I sense that he is taking it with extreme reluctance.
It seems that the courts could put prosecutions in jeopardy because an offence had not been sufficiently publicised. I am not a lawyer, I am glad to say, but one of the clichÃ(c)s to which I cling is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. There will be huge tracts of the statute book about which Committee members know nothing, but none of us would be able to say “Well, the prosecution should not happen because I did not know I was breaking the law.” In this instance, the people who will be terribly inconvenienced by discovering that they were breaking a law that they did not know existed will presumably be people traffickers. Inconveniencing them should be fairly low on any sensible person’s list of priorities.
I find the Minister’s explanation extraordinary. Nevertheless, I have no wish to jeopardise the prosecution of such people, so I accept the Minister’s advice.

Crispin Blunt: Why?

Damian Green: I find it extremely unlikely that prosecutions could be jeopardised, but I have to take what the Minister says in good faith. I have no doubt that the best legal brains in his Department have advised him that it could put prosecutions in jeopardy. I have no wish to do that. With deep and extreme reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Exceptions

Liam Byrne: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 45, page 24, line 3, leave out ‘Sections 1 to 4 and 21’ and insert
‘Sections 1 to 4, 21 and 27(1) and (2)’.

Eric Illsley: with this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 30 to 32.

Liam Byrne: The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), flags up an issue on trafficking that did not emerge until after publication of the Bill. The amendment seeks to bring the Bill perfectly in line with our devolution arrangements. It proposes the simple remedy of delimiting the extent of the relevant clauses to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The effect of the amendment is limited. My hon. Friend and I needed some reassurance of what the practical implications would be. The amendment will allow us to preserve the existing situation. If there is people smuggling or human trafficking into the United Kingdom, or from Scotland into England or from England into Scotland, an offence would still be committed in each of those three situations regardless of whether the offence was undertaken by a British national or by a foreign national and of whether the crime was organised in the UK or abroad.
If the clause remains unamended, prosecution of the trafficking offence would need to be undertaken in a court in England. We therefore look to the Scottish Executive, at some time after the elections, to bring forward proposals to ensure that the remit of the Bill, and particularly of clause 45, is extended to Scotland so as to ensure that the offence can be prosecuted in Scottish courts as well as English courts. I am satisfied that there is no practical diminution of our intent to prosecute the offence in the UK. We have devolution arrangements in place, and it is important that Bills passed by the House should be in line with them.

Damian Green: The issue of devolution has bedevilled the Bill from the start of its Committee stage almost to the finish. If I understand the Minister, he just said that for the provisions of the Bill to be effective, the Government will have to plead with the Scottish Executive after the elections to pass them.

Liam Byrne: Not the Bill, but the clause.

Damian Green: I misspoke. I, too, meant to refer to the clause. Presumably, until that happens the protections afforded by the Bill will not be fully available to the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland or, presumably, Scotland. As he said, he will depend on the good will of the Scottish Executive after the Scottish elections to agree to the things that the current Labour-led Scottish Executive has failed to agree to. I find that position, as I have done throughout, a slightly unusual one for a Government to find themselves in. However, many of the provisions of the Bill are useful, so I hope that, whatever the make-up of the Scottish Executive after the Scottish elections, Ministers will find that their powers of persuasion are more effective with the new Executive than they appear to be with the current one.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of devolution. The key issue for me is that the provisions of the Bill will be given effect in the United Kingdom. We will be able to seek and deliver prosecutions under the offences of people trafficking and human smuggling. If the party that I think is going to win the Scottish election does win, it will not be long before the provisions apply in Scotland too.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 30, in clause 45, page 24, line 6, after ‘extend’, insert ‘(subject to subsection (3))’.
No. 31, in clause 45, page 24, line 10, leave out ‘But’.
No. 32, in clause 45, page 24, line 10, after ‘shall’, insert ‘(subject to subsection (1))’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Assaulting an immigration officer: offence
‘(1) A person who assaults an immigration officer commits an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.
(3) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland the reference in subsection (2)(a) to 51 weeks shall be treated as a reference to 6 months.
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland the reference in subsection (2)(a) to 51 weeks shall be treated as a reference to 12 months.
(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (51 week maximum term of sentences) the reference in subsection (2)(a) to 51 weeks shall be treated as a reference to 6 months.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move that the new clause be read a Second time.

Eric Illsley: With this, it will be convenient to consider new clause 3—Assaulting an immigration officer: powers of arrest, &c.

Liam Byrne: This is a debate that we have, to an extent, already had. The purpose of the clauses is to create the new offence of assaulting an immigration officer, to establish penalties and sanctions relating to that offence, and to ensure that there is the power of arrest, and to make the technical and consequential amendments that are required to ensure that it is possible to give effect to warrants to enter premises, to search individuals who are arrested and to seize material. They not only bring the new offence into being, but align it with the similar offences of assaulting an officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and assaulting a police officer. The proposed penalties, which have been well debated by the Committee, are fairly standard and well established.
Before I sit down I underline the point that we have had a useful debate in the Committee, in which we have spent some time celebrating the contribution, pride and professionalism of our immigration officers. The Committee can take this opportunity to send an important signal to immigration service staff that we take their work extremely seriously and will ensure that they have the protection of the law where and when they need it.

James Clappison: I have just one question. We notice that the offence in the new clause will be triable only summarily. If an immigration officer is assaulted and any harm is caused to him, which one imagines there might well be in many cases, it then becomes an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and triable at the Crown court, because that offence carries a maximum sentence of five years and can be tried in either the magistrates court or the Crown court.
In a case in which the offence becomes triable in the Crown court and is tried there, what will happen to the summary-only offence of assaulting an immigration officer? Will it be able to stand as an alternative on the indictment in the Crown court for the offence of assault occasioning actual body harm?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for such a direct question. Will he permit me to deliver him a much fuller response in writing than I am able to give him this afternoon?

James Clappison: I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Crispin Blunt: While the Minister is offering explanations in writing, would he be willing to offer an explanation of the advice that he received on the earlier amendment No. 108 so that we can decide whether to return to the matter on Report?

James Clappison: Will the Minister address a related question in his letter to me? Will there be any way to communicate to sentencing judges, through sentencing guidelines, that if somebody is convicted of assaulting an immigration officer and occasioning actual bodily harm, the fact that it was an immigration officer who was assaulted should be regarded as an aggravating feature of the offence? That is to say, the fact that it was an offence of causing actual bodily harm to an immigration officer should be regarded as an aggravating circumstance and make the sentence more serious than it would otherwise be.

Eric Illsley: Order. Before I call the Minister to respond, I have to say that he is obliged to respond only to the points on new clause 2. The hon. Member for Reigate is out of order in trying to raise amendment No. 108 again.

Liam Byrne: I have made it my policy to be as helpful to the Committee as I possibly can, and that is the path of least resistance to a successful Third Reading and Report stage. If there is advice that I can usefully summarise and provide to the Committee, I will of course seek to do so.
I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Hertsmere. He has been consistent in his words of praise for the professionals in the immigration service. Like me, he understands that is important for the House to send a clear signal of support to immigration officers, who often do difficult work in dangerous circumstances. I will undertake to have a conversation with my noble Friend Baroness Scotland to understand what guidance we can issue to the judiciary so that they, too, can understand the gravity and seriousness with which we want the offences to be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Assaulting an immigration officer: powers of arrest, &c.
‘(1) An immigration officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed or is about to commit an offence under section [Assaulting an immigration officer: offence].
(2) An offence under section [Assaulting an immigration officer: offence] shall be treated as—
(a) a relevant offence for the purposes of sections 28B and 28D of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (search, entry and arrest), and
(b) an offence under Part 3 of that Act (criminal proceedings) for the purposes of sections 28(4), 28E, 28G and 28H (search after arrest, &c.) of that Act.
(3) The following provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) shall have effect in connection with an offence under section [Assaulting an immigration officer: offence] of this Act as they have effect in connection with an offence under that Act—
(a) section 28I (seized material: access and copying),
(b) section 28J (search warrants: safeguards),
(c) section 28K (execution of warrants), and
(d) section 28L(1) (interpretation).’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person as Chief Inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency.
(2) The Chief Inspector shall monitor and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Border and Immigration Agency; in particular, the Chief Inspector shall consider and make recommendations about—
(a) consistency of approach within the Border and Immigration Agency,
(b) the practice and performance of the Border and Immigration Agency compared to other persons doing similar things,
(c) practice and procedure in making decisions,
(d) the treatment of claimants and applicants,
(e) certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (unfounded claim),
(f) compliance with law about discrimination in the exercise of functions, including reliance on section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (exception for immigration functions),
(g) practice and procedure in relation to the exercise of enforcement powers (including powers of arrest, entry, search and seizure),
(h) the provision of information,
(i) the handling of complaints, and
(j) the content of information about conditions in countries outside the United Kingdom which the Secretary of State compiles and makes available, for purposes connected with immigration and asylum, to immigration officers and other officials.
(3) In this section “the Border and Immigration Agency” means—
(a) immigration officers, and
(b) other officials of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, in respect of functions relating to immigration, asylum or nationality.
(4) The Chief Inspector shall not aim to investigate individual cases (although this subsection does not prevent the Chief Inspector from considering or drawing conclusions about an individual case for the purpose of, or in the context of, considering a general issue).’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The Chief Inspector shall have the power to investigate individual cases.’.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Chief Inspector: supplemental
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall pay remuneration and allowances to the Chief Inspector.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) shall before the beginning of each financial year specify a maximum sum which the Chief Inspector may spend on functions for that year,
(b) may permit that to be exceeded for a specified purpose, and
(c) shall defray the Chief Inspector’s expenditure for each financial year subject to paragraphs (a) and (b).
(3) The Chief Inspector shall hold and vacate office in accordance with terms of appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).
(4) The Chief Inspector may appoint staff.
(5) A person who is employed by or in any of the following may not be appointed as Chief Inspector—
(a) a government department,
(b) the Scottish Administration,
(c) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(d) a department in Northern Ireland.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Reports
‘(1) The Chief Inspector shall report in writing to the Secretary of State—
(a) once each calendar year, in relation to the performance of the functions under section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] generally, and
(b) at other times as requested by the Secretary of State in relation to specified matters.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any report received under subsection (1).
(3) But a copy may omit material if the Secretary of State thinks that its publication—
(a) is undesirable for reasons of national security, or
(b) might jeopardise an individual’s safety.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 9, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Information Commissioner’.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Plans
‘(1) The Chief Inspector shall prepare plans describing the objectives and terms of reference of proposed inspections.
(2) Plans shall be prepared—
(a) at prescribed times and in respect of prescribed periods, and
(b) at such other times, and in respect of such other periods, as the Chief Inspector thinks appropriate.
(3) A plan must—
(a) be in the prescribed form, and
(b) contain the prescribed information.
(4) In preparing a plan the Chief Inspector shall consult—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) prescribed persons.
(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after preparing a plan the Chief Inspector shall send a copy to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) each prescribed person.
(6) The Chief Inspector and a prescribed person may by agreement disapply a requirement—
(a) to consult the person, or
(b) to send a copy of a plan to the person.
(7) Nothing in this section prevents the Chief Inspector from doing anything not mentioned in a plan.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies: general
‘(1) The Chief Inspector shall cooperate with prescribed persons in so far as the Chief Inspector thinks it consistent with the efficient and effective performance of the functions under section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment].
(2) The Chief Inspector may act jointly with prescribed persons where the Chief Inspector thinks it in the interests of the efficient and effective performance of the functions under section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment].
(3) The Chief Inspector may assist a prescribed person.
(4) The Chief Inspector may delegate a specified aspect of the functions under section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] to a prescribed person.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies: non-interference notices
‘(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Chief Inspector believes that—
(a) a prescribed person proposes to inspect any aspect of the work of the Border and Immigration Agency, and
(b) the inspection may impose an unreasonable burden on the Agency.
(2) The Chief Inspector may give the prescribed person a notice prohibiting a specified inspection.
(3) The prescribed person shall comply with the notice, unless the Secretary of State cancels it on the grounds that the inspection would not impose an unreasonable burden on the Agency.
(4) A notice must—
(a) be in the prescribed form, and
(b) contain the prescribed information.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about—
(a) the timing of notices;
(b) the publication of notices;
(c) the revision or withdrawal of notices.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Abolition of other bodies
The following shall cease to have effect—
(a) section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (monitor of immigration exception),
(b) section 34 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (Monitor of Accommodation Centres),
(c) section 111 of that Act (monitor of certification of claims as unfounded), and
(d) section 142 of that Act (Advisory Panel on Country Information).’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Prescribed matters
‘(1) In sections [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] to [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies: non-interference notices] “prescribed” means prescribed by order of the Secretary of State.
(2) An order under any of those sections—
(a) may make provision generally or only for specified purposes,
(b) may make different provision for different purposes, and
(c) may include incidental or transitional provision.
(3) An order under any of those sections prescribing a person may specify—
(a) one or more persons, or
(b) a class of person.
(4) An order under any of those sections—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

Senior President of Tribunals
‘(1) At the end of section 43(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (report by Senior President of Tribunals) add—
“, and
(e) cases coming before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.”
(2) In exercising the function under section 43 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 the Senior President of Tribunals shall have regard to—
(a) the functions of the Chief Inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency, and
(b) in particular, the Secretary of State’s power to request the Chief Inspector to report about specified matters.’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

Fees
‘(1) Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (c. 19) (fees: power to set amount in excess of costs) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) an application or process in connection with sponsorship of persons seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom,”.
(3) After that subsection insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 51(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (fees), specifying the amount of a fee for a claim, application, service, process or other matter in respect of which an order has been made under section 51(1) or (2), may specify an amount which reflects (in addition to any costs referable to the claim, application, service, process or other matter) costs referable to—
(a) any other claim, application, service, process or matter in respect of which the Secretary of State has made an order under section 51(1) or (2),
(b) the determination of applications for entry clearances (within the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (interpretation),
(c) the determination of applications for transit visas under section 41 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (transit passengers), or
(d) the determination of applications for certificates of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom under section 10 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41).”
(4) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The amount of a fee under section 1 of the Consular Fees Act 1980 in respect of a matter specified in subsection (2A)(b) to (d) above may be set so as to reflect costs referable to any claim, application, service, process or other matter in respect of which the Secretary of State has made an order under section 51(1) or (2) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (c. 13).”’.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to tidy up some of the powers to raise money to help fund a robust and effective immigration system. I am afraid that I cannot offer the Committee any constitutional imagination, as we already have these powers. Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 gives the IND the power to cost recover. Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 gives the IND the power to over-cost charge. The clause allows us to over-cost charge on the basis of the value of the service that we provide to the migrant who applies for leave to enter.
There are currently a number of limitations to the powers, however, and I should like to sketch out two or three of them for the benefit of the Committee. First, we do not have the power to charge for the introduction of sponsorship arrangements. That is significant, because we are shortly to introduce a points-based system, which means that sponsoring organisations, whether businesses or colleges, will have a much more important role. At the moment, there is no law that allows us to charge for such arrangements, and they are expensive. They allow us to put in place an enforcement and compliance network of people throughout the country to ensure that sponsors behave appropriately. Given the conversations that we had about illegal working and bogus colleges, it is important that that network is robust and effective, so I would like the power to charge for introducing sponsorship arrangements.
The second limitation is a vires issue, which affects UKvisas. UKvisas is allowed to charge for its services under section 1 of the Consular Fees Act 1980. There are constraints on what it can charge for, however. In effect, it can charge only for administrative services that relate directly to consular activity, rather than for any aspect of enforcement of an effective immigration system that entails cost.
We want to do two or three things over the next couple of years to render our immigration system stronger. They include introducing sponsorship. The advent of the points-based system means that a lot of decision making will move abroad, so there will be no UK cost base against which we can charge. That means that there will be a volume shift of business overseas. It could be as high as 10 per cent., or it could be a little bit lower. The risk is that the UK cost base will be spread over a smaller number of applications. Given that many of the costs are fixed, one does not have to be a Nobel prize-winning economist to understand that there is therefore a risk of in-country fees going up.
The education and business communities and indeed the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which the hon. Member for Hertsmere is a member, have consistently said that they want not divergence but convergence between out-of-country fees and in-country fees. A week or two ago, the CBI said:
“The current system clearly needs to be reformed. If rises in visa fees are necessary to fund these improvements, employers will see it as a price worth paying”.
The Home Affairs Committee said:
“The calculation of visa fees and in-country fees should be aligned”
at least in terms of what costs are taken into account and the impact assessment that accompanies them. We want to ensure that there is a degree of flexibility, so that there is not a great deal of divergence between out-of-country and in-country fees.
The new clause allows us to do three things: it allows the IND to cross-subsidise between in-country fee streams, it allows us to cross-subsidise between out-of-country and in-country fees, and it allows us to over-cost charge where necessary for new sponsorship arrangements. The fees to be proposed for such over-cost charging will, of course, be subject to the affirmative procedure, as they are today, and we will have to consult on fees where we plan to recover over costs. Crucially, the new clause will allow us to set fees at the market value and retain the flexibility to protect key segments of the population, as we proposed to do recently with students and visitors.
It is not in our interest, of course, to hike up fees to such an extent that people do not want to come to this country anymore. That would be hugely damaging for the British economy given that each year foreign students pay about £5 billion in fees to our universities and foreign visitors bring about £13 billion into the economy. I think that tourism is about the fourth or fifth biggest market sector in the economy.
The proposal will not, I am afraid, provide the IND with carte blanche to go crazy and put up fees as much as it would like. That would damage the economy and the country, and I think that the Treasury would have something to say about it. However, with new clause 16 we are seeking to acquire a degree of flexibility to help us render the charging scheme fit for the future.

Damian Green: The new clause is simply headed “Fees.” It is a very short name for a very long clause.
I would describe the Minister’s performance just now as elegantly cynical, which is part of a trend. The Government have found a potential gold-mine about which nobody has complained too much, because the proposal is for a stealth tax on foreigners, which is politically more acceptable given the previous raft of stealth taxes that they have imposed on the rest of us and given that they will use the money to fund the activities of the IND.
So far we have not had any numbers. I shall be interested if the Minister will tell us how much extra revenue the Department has calculated will result from the flexibility that he is adding under this new clause. I dare say that we will have the same debate on visa fees when that comes before the Delegated Legislation Committee in the near future because the same principle applies.
We have no objection to the proposal in principle. The Minister’s last point was a good one: clearly, it is not simply a question of what the market will bear from individual applications or even classes of application because—I assume—he is not proposing to disaggregate it to such an extent that the Department will guess what each individual visa will bear. Presumably, if Goldman Sachs wants to bring in a bond trader, it would be in its economic interest to pay millions for that visa, whereas even the most brilliant student at the best university would not justify that kind of payment.
As well as figures, it would be interesting if the Minister would give us an indication of the degree of flexibility that he is proposing and, therefore, of who is likely to be funding the measure. As he said, the new clause refers to sponsors and, therefore, to UK businesses, academic institutions and, presumably, UK individuals. To put actual figures in the new clause would be illuminating for the Committee.

John Hemming: It is reasonable to have a certain amount of flexibility and so the new clause has its rationale. There are some strange situations regarding fees charged at the moment and there needs to be some flexibility for cross-subsidy.

Liam Byrne: I am reminded that I should spend more time, rather than less with the hon. Member for Ashford because I had not thought about individual-specific charging regimes. That is an interesting idea and I shall task my officials with working out a policy on it this afternoon.
 Mr. Blunt rose—

Liam Byrne: I shall spend more time with the hon. Member for Reigate if he would like.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister, but what confidence should we have in his judgment and foresight on that measure? Only last night, he told Members in the Chamber of the House of Commons that he was
“sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who is representing the Liberal Democrats on that Committee, will forensically interrogate our proposals. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 644.]
That was in response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who in stentorian tones, to the whole of the main Chamber of the House of Commons, said that
“it is not proper for this House, which prides itself on its ability to scrutinise when given the opportunity to do so, to allow to pass without any comment whatsoever a Ways and Means resolution that allows the Government, yet again, to ride roughshod over the House’s ability to scrutinise its business properly.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 643.]
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the interesting intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, representing the Liberal Democrats here, in which he said that it was reasonable to have flexibility. I wonder whether the Minister would like to reconsider the terms in which he proposed the Ways and Means resolution last night.

Liam Byrne: We have had to rely on members of the official Opposition for the most forensic analysis of the proposals this afternoon. The hon. Member for Ashford is right that further debates are scheduled about the precise charges proposed for next year. I live in hope that that forensic analysis is yet to come.
The hon. Gentleman made two important points, one about the degree of flexibility and the second wanting me to estimate the kinds of moneys that I might have in mind for the next financial year. We are putting forward no proposals for individual-specific pricing, although that is an interesting idea, which may warrant a bit more explanation. I am not sure that we would quite have that latitude within the provisions of new clause 16. More important, on the question of the amount of money that might be raised, when we published our enforcement strategy a week or two ago, I was optimistic that we might raise up to an extra £100 million through the measures in the next financial year. That is important because it means that we will be able to fund extra detention space and immigration officers and to strengthen our systems of immigration and of immigration policing. There are of course volume risks, but those are conservative assumptions. With that, I recommend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr. Byrne.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Liam Byrne: I take the opportunity before we conclude our business to thank you, Mr. Illsley, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Amess, for such courteous and efficient chairing of business—so efficient that we have finished slightly earlier than anticipated, despite the level of analysis and the depth of discussion. I also thank the Clerks, the Hansard reporters, the police and others who have been connected with the conduct of the Committee. I think it has run extremely smoothly. In my Back-Bench career, I served on something like six Bill Committees in a reasonably short space of time, but this is by far and away the smoothest running Committee that I have sat on.
I was grateful too for the exemplary organisation of the public evidence sittings. Like many members of the Committee, I enjoyed the part that we played in the constitutional innovations that the Leader of the House steered through. I think that they were a valuable aspect of the scrutiny of the Bill. I also thank the Whips for the way that they have helped us stay on course. I would like to thank not only the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen but all members of the Committee for the helpful and constructive way in which they have approached the debate. Finally, I thank my officials, who have worked extremely hard, often very late at night, over the past six months in order to put the Bill before the Committee. The Bill has been dispatched after a good deal of careful consideration. I thank the entire Committee, particularly the co-Chairmen.

Damian Green: I echo the Minister’s words of thanks, particularly to you, Mr. Illsley, and to your co-Chairman. It has been a life-enhancing experience to be on a Committee chaired by the two of you. Similarly, I particularly thank the Clerk of the Committee for her hard work and guidance during the discussions and the tabling of amendments and so on, and of course the Hansard reporters and the police. The Minister talked about constitutional innovations, but I think that thanking Whips in public is possibly a constitutional innovation that I, as a Conservative, will have to go away and think about before committing myself to. It might be dangerous.
I extend my thanks and the thanks of those on the Opposition Benches to the Ministers for such clear exposition as they have been able to give on some of the amendments and clauses. As we all know, this has been not only a well run Committee, as the Minister said, but a good-natured one. I hope that, in its way, it has done some good work in moving the Bill forward and scrutinising it so that we can return to it, refreshed, at its later stages and seek to improve it even more.

John Hemming: I echo those thanks, and I think that people will thank me for my brevity if I sit down. I also thank the hon. Member for Reigate for quoting last night’s Hansard.

Eric Illsley: Before I put the Question, I thank hon. Members for their kind comments about myself and my fellow Chairman. I echo the Minister’s thanks to the police, the Hansard writers and the attendants. I add my thanks to the Scrutiny Unit and the witnesses who gave evidence in front of the Committee. I congratulate Members for the good-humoured way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the passage of the Bill, particularly as we have been following something of an experimental procedure over the past few weeks. Last, but by all means most, thanks to the Clerk for her hard work during the Committee stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at sixteen minutes past Five o’clock.